1995 Supreme(AP) 238

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : D.H.NASIR, M.N.RAO
K.Krishnan - Appellant
Versus
Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams - Respondent
Decided On : 04-26-95

Headnote:

M. N. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal - A. S. No. 462 of 1991 - and the two civil revision petitions -C. R. P. Nos. l291 and 1292 of 1991-areinter-connected and so they are disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE appeal, by the six defendants, is from the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupati in O. S. No. l46 of l987 granting a declaration that the suit land admeasuring Ac. 2-73 cents in T. S. No. 4042 corresponding to old Survey No. 405 is a religious inam i. e. , devadayam granted in favour of the kurathalwar Devasthanams situated in Sri Govindarajaswamy temple, Tirupati, for its support, which was subsequently, by operation of law, vested in the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, the first respondent-plaintiff. The trial Court also held that the appellants should deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff could seek eviction only by taking recourse to Sections 83 and 84 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (Act 30 of 1987) (for short "the Act" ).

Fact of the Case:

The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, damages for use and occupation, and payment for use and occupation from the date of plaint till the date of recovery of possession. The defendants resisted the suit on the ground that the property was the personal property of Kurathalwar alias Alwar Ayyangar and his wife Thangammal, the ancestors of the first appellant, and the same was leased out by their adopted son, Venugopala Chary, for a period of 55 years commencing from 24-3-1939 to 23-3-1994 under a document dated 6-9-1939 in favour of one Sagarmal Sait, who obtained it benami for Kasthurichand, father of the second defendant and the husband of the third defendant. There was a compromise decree in O. S. No. 133 of 1942 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tirupati, under which, Kasthurichand was lawfully inducted into possession as the lessee.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court held that the suit land is a religious inam granted for the support of the pagoda of Kurathalwar Devasthanams and that the appellants should deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. The court also held that the appellants are liable to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the entire Ac. 2-73 cents to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams. The court further held that the possession of the suit property by the defendants (appellants herein) is that of encroachers within the meaning of Section 83 of the Act and consequently concluded that the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams could seek eviction of the lessees (appellants 2 to 6) by taking recourse to Sections 83 and 84 of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaint schedule land is Inam land granted for the support of the pagoda of Kurathalwar Devasthanams? 2. Whether the plaintiff has got title to the suit property? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the injunction prayed for? 4. Whether the suit is designedly exaggerated by the plaintiff? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages for use and occupation. If so to what amount? 6. Whether the defendants have perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession? 7. Whether there is no cause of action for the suit? 8. To what relief?

Ratio Decidendi: The appeal is barred by res judicata since the very same question in controversy in both the suits in question was whether the suit land was an inam land or private land belonging to appellant No. 1’s ancestor, from whom it was taken on lease by the second appellant’s father. The finding given is that it is an inam land granted for devadayam purpose to Kurathalwar temple and that appellants 2 to 5 herein are encroachers. Appellant No. 1 had no title and no evidence, whatever, was brought on record by him to establish the title of his ancestors.

Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed with costs. The civil revision petitions are closed as unnecessary since the appellants, by virtue of this judgment, have to hand over possession of the suit property to the respondent-Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams as the lease period had expired.